Editor's note

With John Guy vacationing in the Badlands, we are featuring previously released podcasts. This week it’s a conversation with Sheila Kennedy about the progress and prospects for American women. Access this Who Gets What podcast by entering

“https://mortonjohn.libsyn.com/women's_progress_and_ political_resistance” in your browser
None of the following is a commendation nor a condemnation of the redistricting done by the Indiana House and Senate for drawing their districts as they pleased. They had constraints arising from shifting populations, the guidelines of the law and court cases, the career aspirations of their continuing members, and the power objectives of their dominant party.

Redistricting is a complex process. In the Indiana House, by my calculations, 68 counties did not have sufficient population entitling them to an exclusive Representative. The balance of our 92 counties (24) were large enough to have at least one exclusive legislator.

How was this resolved? Of those 68 counties, 37 shared a Representative with other counties, but had only one Representative to contend with. That left 31 small- and medium-sized counties split among two or more Representatives. Then there were 24 counties with populations large enough to require more than one Representative.

For example, House seat 55 represents parts or all of six counties (Decatur, Fayette, Franklin, Ripley, Rush, and Union). At the other end of this spectrum is Marion County with 16 Representatives of whom only 2 are shared with other counties.

If we look at population per Representative, Wayne County tops the list with approximately 66,600 persons with just one Representative. This contrasts with Newton, Pike and Pulaski where these counties of fewer than 14,000 persons apiece were divided between two Representatives each.

The story is similar in the Indiana State Senate where 80 counties did not have sufficient population to have an exclusive Senator of their own. With redistricting, 63 of those 80 were not split and had but one Senator to contend with.

Madison was the largest unsplit county and shared a Senator with neighboring Hamilton County. Seventeen counties were split such that their interests were represented by two or more Senators.

Marion County, with the state’s largest population, was represented by nine Senators, of whom four were shared with adjacent counties.

From the point of view of the 50 Senators, 14 had only one county to represent and 15 had two counties. Eight Senators had five or six counties in their portfolios.

These observations raise two questions: First, why aren’t the Senate and House districts consolidated? If the House districts are each half the population of a Senate district, that Senate district could be overlaid on two House districts. It leaves the legislators room for partisan play, but would simplify life for voters.

Second, is it best for voters of a city or county to have as few legislators as possible or is there safety in numbers? Are the interests of St. Joseph County diluted with five Representatives and four Senators where four and two, respectively, are required on the basis of population.

It might be useful to have answers to these questions before the next round of redistricting.
Morton J. Marcus is an economist formerly with the Kelley School of Business at Indiana University. His column appears in Indiana newspapers, and his views can be followed his podcast.

© 2025 Morton J. Marcus

-30-